[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2924b09c-bf19-4de2-aae4-55752dab24a6@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 09:25:50 +0200
From: Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
CC: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Rasmus Villemoes
	<linux@...musvillemoes.dk>, Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>, "Jakub
 Kicinski" <kuba@...nel.org>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, David Ahern
	<dsahern@...nel.org>, Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, "Simon
 Horman" <simon.horman@...igine.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>, <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	<ntfs3@...ts.linux.dev>, <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] bitops: let the compiler optimize __assign_bit()
From: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2023 09:18:40 -0700
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 05:10:15PM +0200, Alexander Lobakin wrote:
[...]
>> -static __always_inline void __assign_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr,
>> -					 bool value)
>> -{
>> -	if (value)
>> -		__set_bit(nr, addr);
>> -	else
>> -		__clear_bit(nr, addr);
>> -}
>> +#define __assign_bit(nr, addr, value)				\
>> +	((value) ? __set_bit(nr, addr) : __clear_bit(nr, addr))
> 
> Can you protect nr and addr with braces just as well?
> Can you convert the atomic version too, to keep them synchronized ?
+ for both. I didn't convert assign_bit() as I thought it wouldn't give
any optimization improvements, but yeah, let the compiler decide.
> 
>>  
>>  /**
>>   * __ptr_set_bit - Set bit in a pointer's value
>> -- 
>> 2.41.0
Thanks,
Olek
Powered by blists - more mailing lists